The GOP Convention MegaMittensThread!

[Martinus]

This is Languish, where most posters were natural Republicans, until the party abandoned them over a period from the mid-90s to the emergence of the Tea Party.

Languish posters are like Jeff Daniels. They started as "Dumb and Dumber" and now are doing "Newsroom".

[Phillip V]

[Neil]

That's the biggest problem with a huge number of right-wingers:  they refuse to acknowledge defeat and accept the legitimacy of the Democratic president.  This is a very dangerous trait in a democratic system.

Wouldn't that hold true for left-wingers and Republican presidents?

[DGuller]

That's the biggest problem with a huge number of right-wingers:  they refuse to acknowledge defeat and accept the legitimacy of the Democratic president.  This is a very dangerous trait in a democratic system.

Wouldn't that hold true for left-wingers and Republican presidents?

No, it wouldn't.  There may have been some questioning of W's legitimacy at first, but that's on Supreme Court's conscience.

[CountDeMoney]

That's the biggest problem with a huge number of right-wingers:  they refuse to acknowledge defeat and accept the legitimacy of the Democratic president.  This is a very dangerous trait in a democratic system.

Wouldn't that hold true for left-wingers and Republican presidents?

No, as that's never been the case, except perhaps for the closing days of Watergate.

[Neil]

That's the biggest problem with a huge number of right-wingers:  they refuse to acknowledge defeat and accept the legitimacy of the Democratic president.  This is a very dangerous trait in a democratic system.

Wouldn't that hold true for left-wingers and Republican presidents?

No, as that's never been the case, except perhaps for the closing days of Watergate.

I know you weren't in a coma when W. Bush got elected, so I'm going to chalk that up to willfull blindness.

[garbon]

That's the biggest problem with a huge number of right-wingers:  they refuse to acknowledge defeat and accept the legitimacy of the Democratic president.  This is a very dangerous trait in a democratic system.

Wouldn't that hold true for left-wingers and Republican presidents?

No, it wouldn't.  There may have been some questioning of W's legitimacy at first, but that's on Supreme Court's conscience.

That's quite a rosy picture your painting. Pretty sure there are many people who would still say W didn't really win the election.

[CountDeMoney]

I know you weren't in a coma when W. Bush got elected, so I'm going to chalk that up to willfull blindness.

Once Al Gore gave the greatest speech of his life, acknowledging the results and no longer challenging the issue, it was done.
There was no concerted effort by the Democratic Party, by either its supporters or members in government, to cockblock the incoming Administration at all.  You know this.

[Neil]

I know you weren't in a coma when W. Bush got elected, so I'm going to chalk that up to willfull blindness.

Once Al Gore gave the greatest speech of his life, acknowledging the results and no longer challenging the issue, it was done.
There was no concerted effort by the Democratic Party, by either its supporters or members in government, to cockblock the incoming Administration at all.  You know this.

Obstructionism is different from not accepting a President's legitimacy.  The Republicans obstructed the shit out of Clinton, but they never tried to tell people that he wasn't legitimately the President.

[Neil]

And even after Gore did the right thing, there were still Democrats who were beating the 'stolen election' drums.

[DGuller]

That's quite a rosy picture your painting. Pretty sure there are many people who would still say W didn't really win the election.

Same reason as before.  When unelected judges take it upon themselves to short-circuit the election process and declare the winner, legitimacy of the winner will suffer (rightly so, even if unfairly so, as legitimacy comes precisely from the election process).  This was also one in a million accident of history that such a historically monumental election came down to a very small number of votes, which was very unfortunate.

[Valmy]

And even after Gore did the right thing, there were still Democrats who were beating the 'stolen election' drums.

I think that was understandable under the circumstances.  They accepted their defeat in 2004 though.  Mostly because not even they really wanted John Kerry as President.

[dps]

And even after Gore did the right thing, there were still Democrats who were beating the 'stolen election' drums.

I think that was understandable under the circumstances.  They accepted their defeat in 2004 though.  Mostly because not even they really wanted John Kerry as President.

Not all of them.  But granted, it was a much much smaller number who didn't accept the legitimacy of the 2004 election than didn't accept the legitimacy of the 2000 election.

[Phillip V]

2000 was a disaster for which we will continue to be punished for decades to come.

[Jaron]

A lot of people wailed and gnashed their teeth about 2000 and 2004, but there weren't any organized efforts to impeach Bush or remove him from office for that reason. Most of the opposition to Bush later on was related to the war, not the election.

With Obama it has been 'birth certificate' and the momentum behind the criticism of his policies as president has been that he isn't even legitimately allowed to run. Democrats felt Bush stole the elections through the court system, but they never denied he was eligible to run.